DOCSLIB.ORG

Inside out Guattari’S Anti-Oedipus Papers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Inside out Guattari’S Anti-Oedipus Papers Inside out Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus Papers Daniel W. Smith Félix Guattari met Gilles Deleuze in Paris shortly after written between 1969 and 1972, addressed to Deleuze, the events of May 1968, through a mutual friend. Over and they constitute the basis for much of the material the next twenty-five years, he would co-author five in Anti-Oedipus (a few of the papers were written after books with Deleuze, including, most famously, the the publication of Anti-Oedipus in March of 1972, and two volumes of Capitalism and Schizophrenia – Anti- anticipate A Thousand Plateaus). The manuscripts Oedipus (1972) and A Thousand Plateaus (1981). Their were never meant to be published in their own right, collaboration, a kind of French version of Marx and and no doubt some will question their significance, Engels, sparked enormous interest and curiosity: what much as the value of Nietzscheʼs vast Nachlass has had led them to undertake their joint labour? How been disputed. Authors are indeed assessed by their exactly did they work and write together? In 1972, fruits, not their roots. Yet there is new and informative Guattari had not yet written a book of his own; his material here, at least for readers with the patience to first book, Psychoanalysis and Transversality, would toil through Guattariʼs jottings. The papers, as one be published shortly after Anti-Oedipus, with an intro- might expect, vary widely in style, content and tone, ductory essay by Deleuze. Deleuze, by contrast, was ranging from fairly developed theoretical proposals already a well-known figure in French philosophy to scattered notes on diverse topics to early chapter and the author of ten influential works, including the outlines for A Thousand Plateaus. Several texts are landmark Nietzsche and Philosophy (1962) and his little more than notes on books Guattari was reading, magnum opus Difference and Repetition (1968). The including Leroi-Gourhanʼs Milieu et techniques, Jean- nature of Guattariʼs influence on Deleuze, in particular, Toussaint Desantiʼs Les Idéalitiés mathématiques, as is still the object of debate. Was Guattari a bad influ- well as Deleuzeʼs own book on Spinoza, Expression- ence, transforming the good Deleuze-as-philosopher ism in Philosophy, which Guattari had evidently not (the solo Deleuze – dry and even dull, but rigorous read prior to their collaboration. The final section and scholarly) into the bad and crazy Deleuze-as- of the book includes entries from a 1971–72 journal desiring machine (the Deleuze of the D&G writing that Guattari was apparently encouraged to write at machine – irreverent and flamboyant, but philosophi- the suggestion of Deleuze and his wife Fanny. Not cally suspect)? Or was it Guattari who compelled an surprisingly, it includes the most personal and gossipy aloof or even ʻelitistʼ Deleuze to go beyond his natural passages of the volume, recording the ups and downs metaphysical tendencies and confront social and politi- of Guattariʼs relations with his girlfriends, patients cal issues directly? There remain, to this day, partisans and colleagues. on both sides of the issue. Kélina Gotman is to be commended for having The publication of Guattariʼs Anti-Oedipus Papers1 produced a fluid and readable translation, making these has opened up a new window on the Deleuze–Guattari texts easily accessible to English-speaking readers. The collaboration. Editor Stéphane Nadaud – who pro- volume, however, is not without its editorial quirks. vides a helpful introductory essay – has here gathered Strangely, Nadaud decided not to publish the papers in together the Guattari manuscripts that are archived their chronological order (though some texts are dated at the Institut Mémoires de lʼEdition Contemporaine by Guattari himself), but instead has organized the (IMEC) at the Abbaye dʼArdenne. The papers were texts around six thematic sections of his own choosing. * Félix Guattari, The Anti-Oedipus Papers, ed. Stéphane Nadaud, trans. Kélina Gotman, Semiotext(e), New York, 2006. 384 pp., £11.95 pb., 1 584 35031 8. Radical Philosophy 140 (November/December 2006) 35 Moreover, although Nadaud notes that almost all of Nous Deuxʼ, Libération, 12 September 1991). Deleuze Guattariʼs texts ʻwere annotated by Deleuzeʼ, the foot- would later confirm that he ʻmade a sort of move into notes only cite slightly more than twenty such annota- politics around May ʼ68, as I came into contact with tions, many of which say little more than ʻunderlined specific problems, through Guattari, though Foucault, by Deleuzeʼ. Obviously, Deleuzeʼs annotations were through Elie Sambarʼ (Deleuze, Negotiations [1995], more extensive than that: at one point, for example, p. 170. Elie Sambar was the editor of the Revue des Nadaud indicates that Guattariʼs text ʻis followed by études palestiniennes). Prior to his meeting Deleuze, two pages written by Deleuze on the infinitiveʼ. Yet Guattariʼs work had been dispersed primarily in four none of these more substantial responses by Deleuze is different areas: his involvement in leftist activism, included in the volume. Both decisions are regrettable his co-directorship of the La Borde Clinic (with Jean – Nadaud says he wanted to publish the texts in their Oury), his attendance at Jacques Lacanʼs seminars, ʻpureʼ form – since they make it difficult to follow and his psychotherapeutic work with schizophrenics. the development of Guattariʼs own thinking or to get For his part, he later explained, ʻI felt a need, not to a sense of the creative give-and-take that took place integrate, but to make some connections between these between him and Deleuze. A well-constructed index four ways I was living, I had some reference points would have made it easier for the reader to trace out … but I didnʼt have the logic I needed to make the various themes in these inevitably ad hoc texts. None- connectionsʼ (Negotiations, p. 15). theless, we should be grateful to Nadaud for having Deleuze and Guattari spoke freely about the working undertaken the editorial work required to make these method that they worked out between themselves, papers available in published form. Readers, depending or what they called their ʻwriting machineʼ. Initially on their interests, will find many paths to follow (and they wrote letters, then had face-to-face meetings, construct) through these texts; I will highlight a few and finally sent manuscripts back and forth, with of them. constant corrections and revisions. Their collaboration was a working relationship, not a social one: they Amis, pas copains were friends (amis), but not buddies (copains), and ʻIt is easier to follow the thread of a good authorʼ, continued to refer to each other with the formal vous wrote Leibniz in the preface to his great book on rather than the familiar tu. One of the revelations of Locke, the New Essays, ʻthan to do everything by The Anti-Oedipus Papers is the important role that oneʼs own efforts.ʼ Such might have been Deleuzeʼs Deleuzeʼs wife Fanny played in the writing process, motto as well. He famously found it difficult to write serving as both a go-between and an amanuensis, ʻin his own nameʼ, and his usual modus operandi was typing up Guattariʼs notes and funnelling the manu- to enter into a ʻbecomingʼ with the authors on whom scripts between the two authors. Guattari speaks often he was writing (Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Nietzsche, of his affection for her – ʻIʼm supported by someone Bergson), creating a kind of zone of indetermination who types, corrects, readsʼ – but also of ʻher demand- between himself and them. His collaboration with ing natureʼ. Despite the definition of philosophy given Guattari seems to have functioned in exactly the same in What is Philosophy?, Guattari did not always seem manner, albeit, of course, with a living author. ʻAt the to conceive of his work as the production of concepts. beginning of our relation, it was Félix who sought me ʻHis ideas are like drawings, or even diagramsʼ rather outʼ, Deleuze recalled in a 1991 interview. ʻI didnʼt than concepts, Deleuze noted elsewhere. ʻFrom my know him.… My encounter with Félix took place perspective, Félix had these brainstorms, and I was around questions concerning psychoanalysis and the like a lightning rod. Whatever I grounded would unconscious. Félix brought me a kind of new field, he leap up again, changed, and then Félix would start made me discover a new domain, even if I had spoken againʼ (Deleuze, Two Regimes of Madness: Texts and of psychoanalysis beforehand.ʼ ʻIt was me who sought Interviews 1975–1995 [2006], p. 238). Brainstorms him outʼ, confirmed Guattari, ʻbut in a second period, harnessed by a lightning rod: such seemed to be the it was he who suggested we work together.… I had nature of the collaboration, with Deleuze functioning been very impressed by the reading of Difference as a conceptual apparatus of capture in relation to and Repetition and Logic of Sense.… He was struck Guattariʼs diagrammatic war-machine. In the end, it by my marked dissidence in relation to Lacanianism, was Deleuze who ʻfinalizedʼ the text of Anti-Oedipus, which was already dominant, and by my way of although they both conceived of the ultimate result approaching political and social problemsʼ (Robert of their work as a truly ʻcollective assemblage of Maggiori, ʻSecret de fabrication: Deleuze–Guattari, enunciationʼ. 36 What The Anti-Oedipus Papers confirm is the being thrust into a new and unwelcome public role, and degree to which their ʻwriting machineʼ functioned, the breaks his writing may introduce into his life. ʻBoth as they themselves liked to say, only on the condition books are finishedʼ, he writes in November 1971. of constantly breaking down. ʻFélix sees writing as a schizoid-flow drawing in all sort of thingsʼ (Negotia- Which fascinates and irritates me. I will have to account for them. I will have to say things, answer tions, p.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chaosmosis : an Ethico-Aesthetic Paradigm I Felix Guattari ; Translated by Paul Bains and Julian Pefanis
    Chaosmosis an ethico-aesthetic paradigm Felix Guattari translated by Paul Bains and Julian Pefanis INDIANA UNIVERSITY PRESS BLOOMINGTON & INDIANAPOLIS English translation© 1995, Power Institute, Paul Bains, and Julian Pefanis Chaosmosis was originally published in French as Chaosmose. © 1992, Editions Galilee All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. The Association of American University Presses' Resolutions on Permissions constitutes the only exception to this prohibition. The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences-Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39 .48-1984. Manufactured in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Guattari, Felix. [Chaosmose. English] Chaosmosis : an ethico-aesthetic paradigm I Felix Guattari ; translated by Paul Bains and Julian Pefanis. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-253-32945-0 (alk. paper). - ISBN 0-253-21004-6 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Psychoanalysis-Philosophy. 2. Subjectivity. I. Title. BFl 75.G81313 1995' 95-31403 194-dc20 1 2 3 4 5 00 99 98 97 96 95 On the planking, on the ship's bulwarks, on the sea, with the course of the sun through the sky and the ship, an unreadable and wrenching script takes shape, takes shape and destroys itself at the same slow pace - shadows, spines, shafts of broken light refocused in the angles, the triangles of a fleeting geometry that yields to the shadow of the ocean waves.
    [Show full text]
  • Objet Petit A,” Once Socialist-Modernist City Square Into a Theatrical Backdrop
    She just goes a little mad sometimes. We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven’t you? – Norman Bates in Psycho This essay is an galma dedicated to the Macedonian government’s project “Skopje 2014,” 01/09 which recently turned Skopje, the capital of the Republic, into a memorial park of “false memories.”1 Over the last five years, a series of unskillfully casted figurative monuments have appeared throughout Skopje, installed over the night, as if brought into public space by the animated hand from the opening credits of Monty Python’s Flying Circus.2 Figures from the Suzana Milevska national past (some relevant, some marginal), buildings with obvious references to Westernized aesthetic regimes (mere imitations of styles from çgalma: The periods atypical for the local architecture), and sexist public sculptures have transformed the ‟Objet Petit a,” once socialist-modernist city square into a theatrical backdrop. Alexander the ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊMore than ninety years ago, in a kind of a manifesto of anti-monumental architectural and artistic revolution, Vladimir Tatlin challenged 4 Great, and 1 both the “bourgeois” Eiffel Tower and the Statue 0 2 of Liberty with his unbuilt tower Monument to the e j p Third International (1919–25). Since then, Other Excesses o k S discourses on contemporary monuments have f o flourished elsewhere in Europe (“anti- s of Skopje 2014 e monuments,” “counter-monuments,” “low- s s e budget monuments,” “invisible monuments,” c x E “monument in waiting,” “participatory r 3 e monuments” ) but this debate has completely h t O a bypassed the Macedonian establishment. k d s n v ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe government’s promise that the Skopje a e l , i t 2014 project would attract tourists and a M e a r journalists to Macedonia has been realized, but n G a e z for all the wrong reasons – in many articles, h u t S r Ê Skopje’s city center is depicted as a kind of e 4 d 1 “theme park,” and some of the newly built n 0 a 2 x r museums are referred to as “chambers of e l e 4 b A horrors.” In short, Skopje 2014 has become a m ” , e a t laughing stock for the foreign press.
    [Show full text]
  • Lacan's Objet Petit a Between Visibility and Invisibility
    Cont Philos Rev (2013) 46:251–269 DOI 10.1007/s11007-013-9263-z ‘‘The object in the mirror of genetic transcendentalism: Lacan’s objet petit a between visibility and invisibility,’’ Adrian Johnston Published online: 4 June 2013 Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013 Abstract One of the more superficially perplexing features of Lacan’s notion of objet petit a is the fact that he simultaneously characterizes it as both non-specu- larizable (i.e., incapable of being captured in spatio-temporal representations) and specular (i.e., incarnated in visible avatars). This assignment of the apparently contradictory attributes of visibility and invisibility to object a is a reflection of this object’s strange position at the intersection of transcendental and empirical dimensions. Indeed, this object, which Lacan holds up as his central psychoanalytic discovery, raises important philosophical questions about the transcendental- empirical distinction, arguably short-circuiting in interesting, productive ways this dichotomy and many of its permutations. This article seeks to achieve two aims: one, to clarify how and why Lacan situates object a between the specular and the non-specular; and, two, to extract from the results of this clarification a preliminary sketch of a post-Lacanian transcendentalism that is also thoroughly materialist. Keywords Lacan Á Mirror stage Á Object a Á Transcendentalism Á Materialism Á Hegel The object of Jacques Lacan’s thirteenth seminar of 1965–1966, entitled ‘‘The Object of Psychoanalysis,’’ is, unsurprisingly, none other than his (in)famous objet petit a, the object for which he takes the credit of discovering.1 In the opening session of this academic year, a session written-up and published separately as the e´crit ‘‘Science and Truth,’’ Lacan establishes a sharp contrast between scientific 1 Lacan (1973–1974, April 9th, 1974).
    [Show full text]
  • The Ontological Plurality of Digital Voice: a Schizoanalysis of Rate My Professors and Rate My Teachers
    The ontological plurality of digital voice: a schizoanalysis of Rate My Professors and Rate My Teachers This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of a paper published in Principles of transversality in globalization and education: Mayes, Eve 2018, The ontological plurality of digital voice: a schizoanalysis of Rate My Professors and Rate My Teachers. In Cole, David R and Bradley, Joff PN (ed), Principles of transversality in globalization and education, Springer, Singapore, pp.195-210. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0583- 2_12 This is the accepted manuscript. ©2018, Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. Reprinted with permission. Downloaded from DRO: http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30105103 DRO Deakin Research Online, Deakin University’s Research Repository Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B Book: Principles of Transversality in Globalization and Education The ontological plurality of digital voice: A schizoanalysis of Rate My Professors and Rate My Teachers Eve Mayes Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia Abstract Online evaluations (like Rate My Professors and Rate My Teachers) have been celebrated as forming wider publics and modes of accountability beyond the institution, and critiqued as reinforcing consumeristic pedagogical relations. This chapter takes up the websites Rate My Professors and Rate My Teachers as empirical entry points to a conceptual discussion, after Félix Guattari, of the ontological plurality of digital voice, and its associated refrains and universes of reference. I turn attention from analysis of the effects of these digitized student evaluations to the moment of their formation – for example, when a student’s finger clicks on a particular star rating.
    [Show full text]
  • The Missing Subject of Accelerationism | Mute 04/03/2015 22:23
    The Missing Subject of Accelerationism | Mute 04/03/2015 22:23 ARTICLES THE MISSING SUBJECT OF ACCELERATIONISM By Simon O'Sullivan , 12 September 2014 Politics / AntiCapitalist / Philosophy / Media / Space Travel http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/missing-subject-accelerationism Page 1 of 20 The Missing Subject of Accelerationism | Mute 04/03/2015 22:23 As with utopian modernism and its attempt to separate Geist from Reason, today’s accelerationists have run into the old problem of differentiating their version of progress from that of capitalist development itself. In his review of the #Accelerate reader, Simon O’Sullivan identifies the crux of the problem as the absent theory of the subject 1. Accelerationism: Left vs. Right http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/missing-subject-accelerationism Page 2 of 20 The Missing Subject of Accelerationism | Mute 04/03/2015 22:23 Terminators and Replicants aside, what kind of subject is implied, or called forth, by the recently re-animated politico-philosophical idea of accelerationism (defined in the Introduction to the recently published #Accelerate: The Accelerationist Reader as ‘the insistence that the only radical political response to capitalism is … to accelerate its uprooting, alienating, decoding, abstractive tendencies’ (p.4))?[i] On the face of it what has become known as left accelerationism involves something more immediately recognisable: a communist subject, or a subject that is the product of collective enunciation. In the ‘Manifesto for Accelerationist Politics’ (MAP) by Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams, first published online and one of the key texts of the aforementioned Reader, we can recognise a call of sorts for a ‘new’ kind of (human) subject, the result of the knitting together of ‘disparate proletarian identities’ (p.360), and one capable of ‘abductive experimentation’ in to how best to act in the world (p.361).
    [Show full text]
  • The Ethic, Phenomenology and Diagnostic of Post-War French Psychiatry
    The Ethic, Phenomenology and Diagnostic of post-war French Psychiatry Thesis submitted to the University of London for the award of Doctor of Philosophy By, David Reggio Goldsmiths College, Department ofHistory, University of London November 2005 1 Abstract of Thesis The thesis seeks to examine the ethical, phenomenological and diagnostic renewal of psychiatry in post-war France. The particular focus of study will be to bring to light (1) the emergence of a psychiatric movement that was to become known as Institutional Psychotherapy in 1952, (2) the inauguration of a particular post-war clinical sentiment of sympathy, (3) and the more specific developments of the psychopathology of schizophrenia undertaken by Dr. Franyois Tosquelles and Dr. Jean Oury. The thesis is composed of three chapters: The first chapter of the thesis, presents a bi-focal analysis of a philanthropic politic characterising two significant moments of medical reform, where psychiatry finds its Hippocratic and Apostolic definition as a vocation addressing the imperial need of man. The first moment, is that of Philippe Pinel in a Post­ Revolutionary France, who urged for more specialised spaces employing the non-violent treatment of the insane. The second, is the German Occupation of France, where the psychiatrist's personage in the questionably 'free' Vichy South is one that is dramatic and resistant. This historical study is conducted in order to bring to light the methodological shift within the history of European psychiatry: what was the art of medicine and alienation for Pinel of the Paris Pitie Salpetriere, is extended and redefmed as the art ofsympathy and dis-alienation for those of the clinical fraternity of Saint-Alban.
    [Show full text]
  • DELEUZE and GUATTARI Jean Hillier in Conversation with Gareth Abrahams
    EXPLORING FOUNDATIONS FOR PLANNING THEORY DELEUZE AND GUATTARI Jean Hillier in conversation with Gareth Abrahams Jean Hillier Gareth Abrahams EXPLORING FOUNDATIONS FOR PLANNING THEORY AESOP INTRODUCTION GARETH ABRAHAMS DELEUZE AND GUATTARI Jean Hillier in conversation with Gareth Abrahams Gareth Abrahams Cardiff University DELEUZE AND GUATTARI eleuze’s seminal texts are notoriously difficult to read, and even more difficult to relate to the work we do in our day-to-day lives as planning theorists and practi- Dtioners. One of the reasons for this difficulty can be found in Deleuze’s eclectic references to other specialist disciplines: biology, differential geometry, psychiatry, linguistics and art amongst others. Spending many hours poring over biological descrip- tions of ginger, or staring into Bacon’s distorted faces will leave many of our most important questions unanswered. And if we put these questions to one side, we soon find that modelling a road layout on the growth patterns of a ground stem vegetable produces a pretty image but an impractical plan. The reason is that Deleuze does not simply use these images as metaphors for his philo-sophy. Rather, he re-creates them into concepts with a very specific function. Thus, the rhizome, the assemblage, the machine, the universal singularity, the multiplicity and the virtual diagram should be seen as concepts that do something very specific. As many Deleuzean scholars have noted, Deleuze’s philosophy is not concerned with what something is, its inherent traits or essence, but what it does, what it might do, how it might affect what other things do and how it might be affected by them (Bryant, 2008; DeLanda, 2002; 2006; Bonta and Protevi, 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Suspense and Film: a Lacanian View”
    DIPLOMARBEIT Titel der Diplomarbeit “SUSPENSE AND FILM: A LACANIAN VIEW” Verfasserin Katarína Kubová angestrebter akademischer Grad Magistra der Philosophie (Mag.phil.) Wien, 2011 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt: A 190 344 353 Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt: UF Englisch Betreuerin: Univ.- Prof. Dr. Eva Müller-Zettelmann DECLARATION OF AUTHENTICITY I confirm to have conceived and written this paper in English all by myself. Quotations from other authors and any ideas borrowed and/or passages paraphrased from the words of other authors are all clearly marked within the text and acknowledged in the bibliographical references. Vienna, in April 2011 ____________________________________ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to my family for their support, especially my mother. Thanks to my boyfriend Joe, without You, this paper will never see the light of the day. Thanks to my supervisor, Univ.-Prof. Dr. Eva-Müller Zettelmann for guidance. Dedicated to Babaj CONTENTS 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 2. Lacanian psychoanalysis .......................................................................................... 4 2.1. Imaginary Symbolic and Real ........................................................................... 5 2.1.1. Mirror stage ................................................................................................ 9 2.1.2. The “fort-da” game ................................................................................... 12 2.2.
    [Show full text]
  • FG FG No.0 a Kitchen Debate
    FG FG A Kitchen Debate no.0 1 In this project we decided to bring Lillian Moller together two FGs—Frank Gilbreth Gilbreth, The Psychology and Félix Guattari. of Management: The Function of the Mind in Determining, Teaching and Installing Methods of Least Waste, Sturgis & Walton Company, New York, 1914. 2 Gilles Deleuze, Foucault, Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press, 1988, p.31. Frank Gilbreth and Félix Guattari have a great deal in common, but they also have many divergences. Firstly, their shared interest in organisa- tion: in Frank Gilbreth’s case ‘scientific organisation’ and in Guattari’s political and revolutionary organisation. This interest was reflected by their intensive use of diagrams. From the perspective that, precisely, the diagram according to Gilles Deleuze, ‘is the map of relations between forces’.² The former was an American engineer who lived at the end of the nineteenth century and the turn of the twentieth (1868–1924), and the latter a psycho- therapist and philosopher in the sec- ond half of the twentieth century (1930–1992). Aside from their shared initials, both regularly worked as a duo. Although this is rare in the field of manage- ment—Frank Gilbreth worked with Lillian Gilbreth,¹ a doctor of psycholo- gy, industrial engineer, and mother of twelve children—, it is quite excep- tional in the field of philosophy, as Félix Guattari co-authored many of his major works with the philosopher Gilles Deleuze. 1 3 And the authors continue: ‘This can be done best by showing graphi­ cally two plans of management: the first of these (see Fig.2) represents what is variously known as military or traditional mana­ gement […] and has also been used many times in religious organi­ sations and political organisa­ tions.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge and Desire in the Consulting Room – Are Neutrality and Abstinence Empty Concepts? Christian Murphy
    Sitegeist 10: 8–34 (2015) Knowledge and Desire in the Consulting Room – Are Neutrality and Abstinence Empty Concepts? Christian Murphy I cannot advise my colleagues too urgently to model themselves during psycho-analytic treatment on the surgeon, who puts aside all his feelings, even his human sympathy, and concentrates his mental forces on the single aim of performing the operation as skilfully as possible (Freud 1912(b): 115). It is certainly possible to forfeit this first success if from the start one takes up any standpoint other than one of sympathetic understanding, such as a moralizing one, or if one behaves like a representative or advocate of some contending party – of the other member of a married couple, for instance (Freud 1913(a): 140). Transference provides the impulse necessary for understanding and translating the language of the unconscious; where it is lacking, the patient does not make the effort or does not listen when we submit our translation to him. Essentially, one might say, the cure is effected by love (Freud 1906: 12). I have already let it be understood that analytic technique requires of the physician that he should deny to the patient who is craving for love the satisfaction she demands. The treatment must be carried out in abstinence (Freud 1915: 164). I am not saying anything else when I say that love is the sign that one is changing discourses (Lacan 1998 [1973]: 16). What does an analyst know? What does an analyst want? What does an analyst do? The relational school has often been described as a postmodern turn within Anglo-American psychoanalysis and as a corrective to the modernism and objectivism of the American classical school.
    [Show full text]
  • The Representation of the Object As the Other in Modernism/Postmodernism: a Psychoanalytic Perspective  Udc 159.964.2
    FACTA UNIVERSITATIS Series: Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology and History Vol. 10, No2, 2011, pp. 173 - 194 THE REPRESENTATION OF THE OBJECT AS THE OTHER IN MODERNISM/POSTMODERNISM: A PSYCHOANALYTIC PERSPECTIVE UDC 159.964.2 Slobodanka Vladiv-Glover Monash University, Australia E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. This paper deals with the complex relationship of the modern psychoanalytic subject to his object which is both a material embodiment of the subject in representation (art and literature) and a metaphysical form of the subject as absence. The space of the subject in the world of objects is illustrated through an analysis of Surrealist art and poetry and the continuation of the paradigm in postmodern forms of representation, for which Andrei Voznesensky's poem "Oza" serves as an example. Key words: Materiality of the object in Surrealism, desire, Voznesensky's Oza, the represented object as substitution for the Lacanian ‘real" and the Freudian Id, the unrepresentable objet-petit-a, the Self as difference and ‘lost' object. I THE OBJECT IN MODERNISM/POSTMODERNISM From the beginning of the 20th century, the European arts have been focused on the representation of the object, which eclipsed or de-centred the solipsistic subject of 19th century Realism. The 'bizarre,' 'surrealist' object of Andre Breton reveals the 'marvellous'1 in everyday reality. Giorgio de Chirico's cryptic objects in The Evil Genius of a King (1914)2 reverberate with an uncanny presence. Magritte's The Object-Lesson (1947), along with the later film script The Lesson of Objects (1960),3 establishes the principle Received September 12, 2011 1 Compare Haim N.
    [Show full text]
  • TEXTS and INTERVIEWS 1972-1977 Ix Uattari Edited By
    TEXTS AND INTERVIEWS 1972-1977 ix uattari Edited by Sylvere Lotringer Introduction by FranQois Dosse Translated by David L. Sweet, Jarred Becker, and Taylor Adkins <e> SEMIOTEXT(E) FOREIGN AGENTS SERIES Copyright © 2009 Felix Guattari and Semiotext(e) All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo­ copying, recording, or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. Published by Semiotext(e) 2007 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 427, Los Angeles, CA 90057 www.semiotexte.com Special thanks to Robert Dewhurst, Emmanuelle Guattari, Benjamin Meyers, Frorence Petri, and Danielle Sivadon. The Index was prepared by Andrew Lopez. Cover Art by Pauline Stella Sanchez. Gone Mad Blue/Color Vaccine Architecture or 3 state sculpture:before the event, dur­ ing the event, and after the event, #4. (Seen here during the event stage.) 2004. Te mperature, cartoon colour, neo-plastic memories, glue, dominant cinema notes, colour balls, wood, resin, meta-allegory of architecture as body. 9 x 29 1/4 x 18" Design by Hedi El Kholti ISBN: 978-1-58435-060-6 Distributed by The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. and London, England Printed in the United States of America ontents Introduction by Franc;ois Dosse 7 PART I: DELEUZEIGUATTARI ON ANTI-OEDIPUS 1. Capitalism: A Very Special Delirium 35 f 2. Capitalism and Schizophrenia 53 3. In Flux 69 4. Balance-Sheet for "Desiring-Machines" 90 PART II: BEYOND AN ALYSIS 5. Guerrilla in Psychiatry: Franco Basaglia 119 6. Laing Divided 124 7. Mary Barnes's "Trip" 129 8.
    [Show full text]